Rafiq v Meredith Connell - [2014] NZHC 2549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-000816 [2014] NZHC 2549

BETWEEN
RAZDAN RAFIQ

Plaintiff

AND

MEREDITH CONNELL Defendant

Hearing: 13 October 2014

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person
B A Tompkins for Defendant

Judgment:

17 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 17 October 2014 at 10.00 am
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………….

RAFIQ v MEREDITH CONNELL [2014] NZHC 2549 [17 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] Razdan Rafiq has applied to review Associate Judge Bell’s decision striking out his claim in defamation against a law firm, Meredith Connell.1 The fully reasoned decision followed a defended hearing at which Mr Rafiq appeared in person and made submissions. The judgment was delivered orally on the day of the hearing but its length and detail indicate a significant amount of thought and preparation by the Associate Judge prior to the hearing. This review is conducted in accordance with the approach in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar;2 it is for Mr Rafiq to persuade me that the decision was wrong. Only then will he be entitled to a fresh assessment of the issues.

[2] The third amended statement of claim alleged that Meredith Connell (1) made defamatory statements during the course of civil litigation in which Mr Rafiq was the plaintiff and Meredith Connell acted for the defendant,3 (2) made defamatory statements during criminal proceedings in which Mr Rafiq was the defendant and Meredith Connell the prosecutor, (3) published a defamatory report about a judgment of this Court on a website, (4) published defamatory comments about Mr Rafiq in an email to the Police and (5) published a defamatory comment about Mr Rafiq in an email circulated internally within Meredith Connell.

[3] Associate Judge Bell held that the statements in the first two categories were absolutely privileged, having been made in the context of legal proceedings. In relation to the publication on the website he held that, not only was there no basis for asserting that Meredith Connell was the publisher of the report, the report was protected by qualified privilege and Mr Rafiq had not shown any basis on which that defence could be defeated. Similarly, the communication to the police was protected by qualified privilege and there was no basis on which this defence could be rebutted. The internal communication of Meredith Connell was amenable to the
defences of honest opinion and qualified privilege.

1      Rafiq v Meredith Connell HC Auckland [2014] NZHC 1597.
2      Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, (2007) 18 PRNZ 768 (SC).
3      Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment [2013] NZHC
1134.

The statements in issue

Statements made in the course of the civil proceedings between Mr Rafiq and the
Chief Executive of Business Innovation and Employment

[4] Meredith Connell acted for the Ministry in defamation proceedings brought by Mr Rafiq against the Ministry of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rafiq v Meredith Connell

Details

AGLC: Rafiq v Meredith Connell [2014] NZHC 2549
Case: [2014] NZHC 2549
Decision Date: 17 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Razdan Rafiq applied for a review of an Associate Judge's decision to strike out his defamation claim against Meredith Connell, a law firm. The defamation claim stemmed from statements made by Meredith Connell during civil litigation, criminal proceedings, and in various communications. The court was required to determine whether the Associate Judge correctly applied the law in finding that the statements were protected by privilege and that the claim had no prospect of success.

The court examined the various statements in detail, confirming that those made during legal proceedings were absolutely privileged. It held that the report published on the lawfuel.co.nz website was protected by qualified privilege, and there was no evidence to suggest Meredith Connell was responsible for the publication. The email sent by Meredith Connell's IT manager to the Police was also found to be protected by qualified privilege, and there was no evidence of ill-will or improper advantage. The internal email within Meredith Connell was protected by both the defence of honest opinion and qualified privilege.

The court concluded that the Associate Judge's decision was correct and dismissed Rafiq's application for review. It found that there was no merit in his arguments and awarded costs to Meredith Connell on a 2B basis with a 50% uplift. Rafiq's application for leave to appeal the decision was also refused, as it lacked merit and did not raise any significant questions of law or fact.

Orders